MOHAN LAL JAIN Vs. MOHAN LAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the landlord challenging the dismissal of his application for ejectment of his tenant by the Rent Controller confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The premises are in Samana Mandi. These were taken on rent by Mohan Lal. Actually his brother, Kaur Sain, has been proved to be residing in these premises. According to the tenant and the evidence on the record, which has been believed by the courts below, even at the time when these premises were taken on rent, Mohan Lal, the tenant, was actually carrying on the business in Narwana and thereafter he is now carrying on his business at Pattran and the likelihood is that he never resided personally in these premises. According to the tenant these premises were taken for the benefit of the joint family and that Kaur Sain is living in part of these premises for the benefit of the family's business which, it is stated, is being carried on here. From the evidence on the record the finding of the courts below that Kaur Sain is not residing in these premises as a sub -tenant is well based.

(2.) THE two courts below were of the opinion that these premises were being used for business and trade purposes. For this reason the Appellate Authority did not go into the question of personal requirement of the landlord. I feel that it is not necessary to go into the question and give a finding one way or the other, whether the premises are residential or non -residential, for the simple reason that the evidence on the record, which has been discussed by the Rent Controller, does not establish clearly that the landlord requires the premises for his personal use. Admittedly the landlord has a big family house at Samana Mandi. No plan of that house was put on the record to indicate as to whether the premises in the possession of the landlord are not sufficient for the requirement of his family, including that of his married son, Bir Sain, who admittedly is carrying on the business at Pattran, a place at a distance of 17 or 18 miles from Samana. According to the landlord his son comes back to Samana Mandi every night. This may or may not be so. It is not possible to give any clear finding that the landlord requires the premises for his own personal use. Unless there is clear evidence on the record as to the accommodation in the possession of the landlord, we cannot say that the existing premises are not reasonably sufficient for his needs.